Why is it insane? More and more women nowadays choose to be known by their maiden names, especially professionally. I see nothing wrong with abolishing the idea that a woman's identity is subsumed into her husband's on marriage. To me, that is the insanity.

I think it would be an excellent idea to formally provide for the spouse of the monarch to be prince or princess consort.

__________________

__________________"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"

The law still exists - it is treason to sleep with the wife of the heir to the throne but the penalty is no longer death.

It is equally treason to conspire to commit treason so for Diana to voluntarily sleep with any man other than Charles, while his wife, was equally treason (it is why both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were executed) and she even went further than either of them and admitted it.

There was a question asked many years ago, while she was still alive I think, by some person doing some research asking why both she and Hewett weren't being charged with treason and the answer went something like 'they weren't caught in the act'.

Sweden was very quick as a country to introduce Equal Primogeniture and they have no problem with the fact that while the wife of the king is the queen, the husband of the queen regnant is a "Prince of Sweden" and gets that title the moment he marries the heiress. Plus he shares her Royal ducal title.

I don't think Philip has a problem with being a Prince of the UK and Duke of Edinburgh and not the King consort - I personally believe his "amoebe"-comment came from the fact that his own, original name was not deemed good enough to become the name of the dynasty as it would have happened traditionally. The SHSG are after all a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg and thus one of the oldest dynasties of Europe.

Sweden was very quick as a country to introduce Equal Primogeniture and they have no problem with the fact that while the wife of the king is the queen, the husband of the queen regnant is a "Prince of Sweden" and gets that title the moment he marries the heiress.

I've wondered about that though. If a king's wife automatically becomes a queen, why can't a queen's husband become a king?

I've wondered about that though. If a king's wife automatically becomes a queen, why can't a queen's husband become a king?

I think it has to do with the recognition that some things just cannot be changed through laws. It is soo customary and ingrained in people to think that man reigns over woman, that there is no real emotional readiness to accept that there can be a queen regnant with a king consort. That women have their own wealth and can do with it what they want is a rather new concept. A concept from a time when monarchy was already very fixed and defined by traditions and customs which come from a time when man was higher than woman.

I personally have no problem with Victoria being "The Crown Princess" and her husband being "Prince Daniel", while together they are the "Crown Princess Couple" - this is really rather sweet. But then Victoria chose a husband who is male through and through but has no problem to openly "serve" his future queen like a true knight all the while showing that she is in public his superior and his future monarch. So he accepts the old customs of king- and queenship as well.

The Queen offered a title to Mark Phillips when he married Anne. They refused it. Tony Armstrong-Jones refused a title when he married Margaret but took it when she became pregnant. King is a higher title than Queen that why Phillip isnt King. Monarchy isn't about fairness. I keep thinking that the Cambridge baby will be a boy because they are changing the rules and it would be ironic.

I think they only want to change the ability of a first born child to accend to the thrown no matter the sex of the child. I don't believe they are trying to change the entire make up of the British Monarchy. People are reading too much into this thing. Same as all the brouhaha about Edward VIII's grandchildren, which could not exist because HE HAD NO CHILDREN. This was to close a loop hole in LP of 1937, and if an abdication would occur in the future.

What a ridiculous article. Is all this flack about Camilla being Princess Consort instead of Queen Consort because she's divorced? I think that's ridiculous. Henry VIII was the monarch to first be named Defender of the Faith, and it was given to him by the Pope. Then he kept the title when he broke with the Church of Rome, divorced Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn and crowned her Queen Consort. There's tradition. There have been divorces and remarriages and there's never been a Princess Consort. And as someone pointed out, monarchy is not about fairness. Anyway, if anyone thinks that the U.S. holds all its citizens as equals just because we don't have titles or a monarch, that our "democracy", which is actually a republic, is somehow more fair, that's very naive.

I've wondered about that though. If a king's wife automatically becomes a queen, why can't a queen's husband become a king?

This is a complex issue, with the reasons rooted in millenia of history and culture.

In the Anglo-Saxon period, the head of the English nation was its elected chief and representative: the king. All the old Teutonic kingdoms were elective. The witan (council) elected the most competent member of the royal family to discharge the functions of king. They didn't elect a queen, they elected a king. The consort of the king was his wife, known as the queen. She occupied a very exalted position; women in that culture were held in high regard and had power.

Things changed after the Norman invasion and the status of women was diminished further and further until eventually they were regarded legally and socially as nothing more than the property of men, especially when they were married. A husband and wife were one legal person, with the wife merely being an extension of the husband. She took his status and titles, but could not have greater status than him, and king is a greater status than queen so the husband of a queen regnant cannot become king.

__________________"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"

I think in the interests of gender equality it is a good idea. Why should a woman who is married to a monarch enjoy a benefit - the status of Majesty - that a man married to a monarch does not? Why should she not just be HRH Princess -, The Princess Consort, and the man be HRH Prince -, The Prince Consort? They are both merely consorts, without any formal role in the government.

It think it is fair, and once done it will set a new precedent, and confirming that Camilla is to be The Princess Consort will get the ball rolling. It would be a compromise which should appease both those who claim she should not be Queen for reasons related to Diana, and also those who think she should have the same status as any woman married to the King. Times change. Equal primogeniture is coming in, and I think this change would go well with that one.

__________________"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"

What a ridiculous article. Is all this flack about Camilla being Princess Consort instead of Queen Consort because she's divorced?

I don't think this idea has anything to do with Camilla but more to do with equality. The man proposing this is advocating that the spouses of monarchs be treated the same regardless of gender - to go along with equality of rights to the throne.

The Princess Consort idea for Camilla has been around since 2005 but will need legislation. This is a chance to get that onto the books now but now just for Camilla but for all future wives of Kings.

I actually think it is a good idea. If you wish to have equality over the rights of girls and boys to inherit based solely on birth order then it is only fair that their spouses are treated the same.

Quote:

I think that's ridiculous. Henry VIII was the monarch to first be named Defender of the Faith, and it was given to him by the Pope. Then he kept the title when he broke with the Church of Rome, divorced Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn and crowned her Queen Consort.

He didn't keep the title. He was stripped of that title by the Pope. Some years later he had the English Parliament confer that title on him again. To change/remove the title Defender of the Faith from the British monarch will take legislation as the title was established by legislation.

Quote:

There's tradition. There have been divorces and remarriages and there's never been a Princess Consort. And as someone pointed out, monarchy is not about fairness.

The issue isn't about divorce and remarriage - it is about Camilla being the 'third person' in Diana's marriage.

Yes let's destroy 1000 years of history. I don't want any future concorts denied queenly style just becauces of equality. If they really want equality instead of downgrading woman's titles, they should upgrade men's titles.

I think they should create the title "King consort" if they really want eqaulity.